Is it bad grammar to use 'off of' anywhere within a sentence?

You could just use "off," or sometimes "from."
Actually, I think the word "of" is only grammatically correct when used in a genitive phrase....I'm not sure though.

Meanings differs, and it is country specific:

1) "Off of:

For most Americans, the natural thing to say is “Climb down off of [pronounced “offa”] that horse, Tex, with your hands in the air”; but many UK authorities urge that the “of” should be omitted as redundant. Where British English reigns you may want to omit the “of” as superfluous, but common usage in the US has rendered “off of” so standard as to generally pass unnoticed, though some American authorities also discourage it in formal writing. But if “onto” makes sense, so does “off of.” However, “off of” meaning “from” in phrases like “borrow five dollars off of Clarice” is definitely nonstandard."
Source and further information:
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/nonerrors.html#off

"You build on your earlier achievements, you don’t build off of them."
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/built.html

"you can build something off of a starting point, but you can’t base anything off of anything. Something is always based on something else."
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/based.html


2) "of/off:
- 'of ' means 'relating to' or 'belonging to':
"A Tale of two Cities"
- 'off' is the opposite to 'on':
"As soon as the train was going slowly enough, he jumped off."

Avoid the phrase 'off of' at all costs."
Source and further information:
http://mercury.tvu.ac.uk/~alan/grammar/howlers.html

"Off Of:
Off of is agrammatical.
I got off the bus,
does the job nicely."
Source and further information:
http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~rafe/grammar.html


3) "Grammar may be separated into two common broad categories: descriptive and prescriptive. Both views of grammar are in wide use, although in general, linguists tend towards a descriptive approach to grammar, while people teaching a specific language – such as English – might tend towards a more prescriptive approach. Usually, there is a bit of give and take in any approach, with a prescriptivist being at least somewhat descriptive, and a descriptivist having some prescriptivist tendencies.

A descriptive grammar tries to look at the grammar of any spoken language or dialect as it actually exists, judging whether a sentence is grammatical or not based on the rules of the speech group in which it is spoken, rather than an arbitrary set of rules. For example, in many speech communities, a sentence such as, “He done got thrown off the horse,” would be entirely grammatical, and an entire set of rules of grammar can be deduced that explain why that formation is grammatical. In another speech community, however, this sentence might be considered ungrammatical, while a version such as, “Him isa throwned offa horse,” would be the grammatical version. In yet another speech community, both would be considered ungrammatical, with only a version such as, “He was thrown off of the horse,” being considered acceptable.

A prescriptive grammar looks at the norms of speech as given by authoritative sources, such as an upper-class or academic subculture, and creates strict rules by which all speech within that language must abide to be considered grammatical. Few linguists take a prescriptive approach to grammar in the modern age, preferring to describe language as it exists in a given speech community. Many teachers, grammar mavens, and pedagogues in general still have a prescriptive approach towards grammar, however, holding to standardized rules as being the only proper way to speak.

Prescriptive grammar is also used to some extent in teaching a language to non-native speakers. When teaching English, for example, it can be useful to employ a “standard” form of English as a baseline to teach from, to help reduce confusion among students. Once the language has been acquired, of course, a less-prescriptive approach will necessarily take over, as the non-native speaker learns regional rules and new dialects that may not conform to the prescriptive grammar he or she originally learned."
Source and further information:
http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-grammar.htm


4) some interesting forums discussions:
""Off of" vs "From" - Grammar and Style - What should be used"
http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1447359&page=1
"Did "based on" beget "based off of"?"
http://ask.metafilter.com/38311/All-your-base-are-off-of-us
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/707088

Yes. When thinking "off of", off is serving as the opposite of 'on' and to use 'of' would be an improper, extraneous use of the preposition.

Less is not, however, always 'more' (at least not when it comes to prepositions). Some words require a particular preposition in certain idiomatic uses (to retain the intended meaning). When these words are joined in a compound construction, all the appropriate prepositions must be included (unless they are the same and implied).

Example:
Wrong - Her rebuttal was marked by disagreement and scorn for her boyfriend's sexist viewpoints.

Right - Her rebuttal was marked by disagreement with and scorn for her boyfriend's sexist viewpoints.

Yes.
You can just use the word OFF by itself.
"Billy jumped off the ladder"
instead of
"Billy jumped off of the ladder"
No need to add words that arent necessary
~+~

Yes it is.. Try "from" or just "off". Inelegant US usage.

I believe that it is. The word 'of' is certainly redundant, although in many parts of the world including south-west England and the United States saying 'off of' is very common indeed.

I have never used that, it seems a very American thing to say, and it really annoys me

Absolutely unless you come from Texas and some other parts of the world.

It is not the opposite to 'onto' as some will have it but 2 distinct words, the 'of' is not only not required but is just wrong according to many hundreds of learned people.

My mum was horrified that the teacher (I was 6) said 'off of' and I was told to correct the teacher. Not good advice, I got 3 strokes of the cane on my soft little hand. Still it does mean I will never forget.

In Received Pronunciation English 'off of' is not used. I was taught that it is a solecism on a par with 'between you and I' or 'different than'.

As noted by others 'off of' is common in some dialects, but not, on the whole, in the speech of educated persons.

It is not the function of linguistics to prescribe how language should be used, though scholars of linguistics do from time to time defend a descriptive approach to grammar. Students of linguistics stand to normal speakers of a language as ornithologists stand towards birds, the one may describe speech, the other birdsong. Neither is necessarily expert about how speakers ought to say things or how birds ought to sing.

In many species of birds the quality of the song is a measure of the fitness of the individual, the better the song the better the bird, and the birds decide among themselves. Likewise in human societies, the more linguistically competent the individual, the more likely, other things being equal, that the individual will be successful. This is a matter determined by one's peers not by scholars of language, and one's peers are the people who determine what is correct and what is incorrect. This means that in any society one particular dialect is likely to be favoured, and that is the one spoken by the successful members of the society. No doubt you can be successful if you speak a different dialect, but speaking or acquiring the successful dialect will make matters easier. So it does make sense to listen to and be influenced by schoolmasters and the conservative pedantic journalists who write about correct English.

My schoolmasters claimed without hesitation that 'off of' is an error, and what linguisticians might say about the matter is completely irrelevant.

If you think thats bad - my wife thinks moot point is MUTE POINT. It drives me insane, I have corrected her but she still insists on saying MUTE.

Here is an example where it perhaps is not wrong:

"My assistant had remained at the points in order that he might superintend the switching off of the train. "

From "The Lost Special", Arthur Conan Doyle, 1898.

Share your answer...

"Of", in this instance, is entirely superfluous. In Canada, as a child, I was taught that "off of" is always incorrect. However, one frequently hears it now on radio and television. I see it increasingly in print as well. I must admit it grates on my ears when I hear it and I cringe when I see it. As a teacher, I know that formal grammar, as I was taught it, in the 50's and 60's, has not been taught in our schools as rigorously as it was then. I also know that English is a dynamic, living language and that usage changes all the time. No doubt, "off of" and other "ungrammatical" phrases or over-correctness, such as using the reflexive "myself" instead of "me" e.g. Phone Tom or "myself" - where "me" is appropriate, will become widely accepted. It's just the nature of language. It is also unfair to label people as "grammar snobs" when they decry what they deem to be incorrect usage. It just sounds wrong to them, that's all.

Yes. This is one of those annoying expressions and mis-pronounciations that have recently exploded into general use from the bad grammar of the south east of England and the US from the term "offa" as in "offa the top" or "get offa me". Another is Fith and sicth. What the hell is so difficult about saying fifth and sixth.

It really is time we stopped using these silly meaningless expressions and started speaking correct English and American for that matter.

Hope this helps.

Phil Jones. phillipm.jones@virgin.net

"Off of" is extremely bad grammar and makes me shudder whenever I see it.

It is yet another example of Americans ruining our language.

i am always forgetting how to use of.of course it is a problem using of.if i jump off a bus,of course,i have to get back on the bus or walk back home,of course.of all the words i get mixed up with,of and off is one of them.